Should 17 year olds be in the youth or adult courts?

The Government is looking to change the law to keep 17-year-old crims out of adult courts – a move that alarms the good samaritan bashed by a teenage bag-snatcher.

Lucy Knight suffered a fractured skull and brain bleed at the hands of 17-year-old Hendrix Hauwai. “The alarming thing is that they will get a another whole year to commit crimes before they hit that magical 18th birthday,” she said yesterday.

Justice Minister Amy Adams has asked officials to look at whether dealing with 17-year-olds in the Youth Court will cut rates of re-offending and stop some young people starting out on a life of crime.

The Youth Court, currently for those aged 12 to 16, is less formal, with specialised judges. Offenders don’t get a criminal record.

I believe the law should be consistent about when a young person is an adult. That is one reasons I supported a drinking age of 18, not 20.

Ideally we should have two ages at which you gain some and then all of the rights (and responsibilities) of adulthood. They are 16 (sex, driving etc) and 18.

So I think you should be tried as an adult either once you turn 16 or 18 – not the status quo of 17.

On a principled level, I think 18 is the better threshold.

The Youth Court already refers the most serious crimes – including murder and manslaughter – to the High Court. That won’t change.

That is key. If you kill someone or rape someone, you should face the adult court. But for lesser charges the Youth Court is appropriate.

Maybe one can use the three strikes law to distinguish? If you commit an offence that qualifies as a strike (a serious violent or sexual offence), then it goes to an adult court regardless of age. But for a non strike offence, it is the youth court until you are 18?

Adams said some aged 17, especially first-time offenders, may benefit from the Youth Court, which places more of an emphasis on support and rehabilitation. “There are equally 17 years olds who, it is their third or fourth time around the system. They are on a very different trajectory. There are a number of police, court and Corrections staff at the front line who have said to me they would be absolutely against me raising the age because there are some 17 year olds, who they think absolutely don’t belong in the youth court system.”

Maybe again have some sort of threshold? If you make more than x (say four) youth court appearances, then it is the adult court after that?

this arbitrary age limit is so open for abuse. Harden crims know the cut offs and use young men of 16/17 to do crime on behalf….

Serious assaults and killings, aggravated robberies adult court – I just can’t see how they can’t be tried as adults from 16 onwards. A lot of lads are pretty physically mature at that age and capable of pretty serious violence against much older people….

BUT on sentencing they need to be handled by the corrections system separately from adults. With really intense counselling and training in impulse control and anger management……

Unity

For serious crimes especially physical ones, they should be treated as adults from the age 16. For other non physical crimes they shouldn’t be treated as adults until age 20. I’m firmly in the camp that the drinking age should be 20. The reason they shouldn’t be treated as adults until age 20 is in the hope that lack of maturity might have contributed to their crime and this would give them a chance to hopefully grow up and move away from criminal acts. However, for serious physical crimes, maturity may not (more than likely won’t) change this sociopath-type behaviour.

tvb

I am glad you are not writing criminal justice policy. Your mechanistic approach assumes you are dealing with machines. You say If you commit 4 offences if this or that you get dealt with in the adult court or whatever. I find your approach laughable. I bet you have never met a troubled young man who is committing offences. Or a young girl for that matter.

mara

We are being told that the human brain does not fully mature until mid-twenties. No doubt some hand-wringers will suggest that they should not be the adult system till then. To hell with that! 18 please.

mara

David Garrett

Your approach sounds reasonable DPF…but unfortunately it also reflects your relative lack of exposure to the sordid underbelly of the real world…The sad reality is the Jesuits had it right when they said “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”…

I have spoken before on here of a visit I made to a youth justice facility not long before my political career ended…It catered for those up to age 17 who were either on remand or had been sentenced…It was a sobering and somewhat frightening experience…The staff were already able to pick those who were destined for “The Big House” next door…and that was about 80% of them…If you are a violent shithead at 12, let alone 17, you are already lost…

A better idea than changing age thresholds would be to re-establish prisons for first offenders – in reality of course, those who had been caught for the first time…Evidence shows there is some hope of turning them away from crime…far better hope than if they go to the Academies of Crime that regular prisons are…

dime

lcmortensen

Yes there are some lost causes, but they make up a very small minority of offenders (<4%). Just under half of all 17-19 year old offenders convicted by the courts last year were for traffic-related offences (e.g. drink driving, driving while disqualified).

Mike

The brain does not fully develop until around the age of 25. We should be making every effort to keep children like Hendrix outside of the criminal justice system. If anything the discussion should be about extending youth court eligibility.

As for DPF’s idea of counting youth court appearances, this is highly arbitrary and therefore undesirable. One youth with four minor offenses will get transferred where has another who has two relatively serious ones will not.

Mike

I see Garrett is wheeling out his old anecdote as some sort of evidence of his 16th century ideology. Readers should be aware that there is no scientific basis to the claim that criminality is instilled and entrenched before a person reaches a certain age in childhood (this is in fact a position that will get you laughed out of most academic institutions).

waikatogirl

By 17 individuals definitely know right from wrong. Kids are very aware these days, if even more self-centered than past generations.

If they do crime, they need to pay for it. I do agree with DG to reestablish first offenders prisons. No good putting the. In with hardened crims who they may look up to and trying to emulate.
Work with the young to help turn them away from crime. Find what they are interested in and help them work toward a rewarding working life instead of crime. At 17, most have no idea they can turn something they are interested in and earn a living from it. I wish someone had told me that at 17…

CharlieBrown

That is key. If you kill someone or rape someone, you should face the adult court. But for lesser charges the Youth Court is appropriate.

That really annoys me, there needs to be more severe punishments for even attempting to do those. How often do we see in the media cases where someone gets beaten senseless (stomped on head, hit with weapons on the head, stabbed etc), but lives and the crim gets aggravated assault rather than attempted murder.

I see Garrett is wheeling out his old anecdote as some sort of evidence of his 16th century ideology. Readers should be aware that there is no scientific basis to the claim that criminality is instilled and entrenched before a person reaches a certain age in childhood (this is in fact a position that will get you laughed out of most academic institutions).
==========================
And all would be wrong as history shows.
Catholic, Jesuits, Muslims, Maori. and so on.

Boris Piscina

Principle is fine DPF but – and pardon me for presuming – you appear to be judging it from the viewpoint of someone who has never witnessed or experienced the effects of criminal offending by quite young people. There are plenty of New Zealanders today who are suffering permanent life-changing debilitating injuries as a result of the actions of 12 and 13 and 14-year-olds. And plenty who are dead.

At 17, a person is able to drive a car, fly a plane, obtain a firearms licence, have sex, get married, and breed children. But they shouldn’t be criminally responsible for their actions?

The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10.

Three Strikes was watered down so much – by National – that it bears no resemblance to the original ACT proposal and is largely pointless.

A little fucker who is a little fucker at 8, and a little fucker at 10, and a little fucker at 14, will be a large fucker at 15 and an unacceptably large fucker at 16, and you want them to still be pussyfooted and mollycoddled through the Courts when they’re 17?

For Christ’s sakes DPF, this is bang-on-the-head territory. Lock the little shits up, forever if necessary. I mean what in God’s name are the likes of you and John Key trying to do to my New Zealand and my National Party? Honestly?

They commit adult crimes, they know feckin damn well what they’re doing, they know full well it’s wrong.

Time to take off the rose-tinted spectacles, methinks.

My Grandmother – rest her soul – was bashed by an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old in her home in South Auckland, a few decades ago. They stole her purse and a clock radio. I’m guessing nothing like that has ever happened to anyone close to you, because if it had, you wouldn’t have this woolly touchy-feely lame-brained apologist attitude to little shits who really need to be shot and composted.

deadrightkev

lcmortensen

Basically this is the law at the moment
Children under 10 cannot be prosecuted for any crime (Crimes Act, s 21)
Children aged 10 and 11 can only be convicted of murder and manslaughter; children aged 12 and 13 can only be convicted of offences punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment or more. (CYPFA, s 272) However, children 10-13 have a rebuttable presumption of innocence – the prosecution must prove that the child knew what they were doing was wrong. (Crimes Act, s 22)
Young people 14 to 16 can be convicted of any crime unless a higher age limit is written in the Act. However, unless the offence is a Category 4 offence (e.g. treason, mutiny, espionage, murder, manslaughter), or a Category 3 offence punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment or more, they cannot be given a custodial sentence (prison or home detention). (Sentencing Act, s 15b and 18)
Strikes and preventative detention can only be given to people aged 18 or over at the time of the offence (Sentencing Act, s 86a and 87)

mikemikemikemike

It’s funny how it works isn’t it. National goes soft on youth crime because it’s too expensive to put everyone behind bars, Labour does it because they want as many people as possible voting for them….both sides making the same wrong decision but for polar opposite reasons.

I think the youth system could do with tightening up. First couple of offences, sure, give a try to turn them aside. Many just need the swift kick that that system can give them to get back on the straight and narrow.

Then there are a bunch who are repeating crimes. They’re off course, and there is some plausible path for them to get back on course. It’s a harder decision, but if they are actually rehabilitatable then it’s worth the investment, notwithstanding that they may still have committed a number of crimes.

Then there are a mob who don’t care, know they can’t be touched in the current system, and are just ripping us all off. These kids need something more severe – maybe first time prison, maybe something else. And the threat of this consequence may also be something that can move the middle category – otherwise they’ll all end up in this group.

Three Strikes was watered down so much – by National – that it bears no resemblance to the original ACT proposal and is largely pointless.

I concede that for the bill National introduced, but the final version of three strikes once it got out of select committee, in pretty close to ACT’s bill, and in many respects, is stricter (it covers a lot more offences, whereas the original SST draft didn’t even include attempted murder as a strike offence, and ACT’s version didn’t include robbery or aggravated robbery, or sexual offences on children.)

Reminds me of the episode of The Wire where a well meaning academic wants to run a rehabilitation programme for 18 year olds who have gone off the rails. A cop sits him in a room with an 18 year old who has been arrested and within a minute or two the cop saves the academic from being stabbed through the hand with his own pen. Then they change the programme to target 13 year olds instead.

Paulus

As a youngster at a boys school in England I was subject “inhumane” experience a number of times on my backside.
I was canned – it hurt, short and remembered treatment, but then I deserved it, and tried not to get caught again, at the same thing.
I hold no grudges – I erred and got punished.

backster

The gangs will love this soft proposal, another years grace in which to have their prospects either commit the serious offences in order to get the weak consequences, or take the rap for serious offences committed by the senior gang members.
One thing Adams has the support of Andrew Little for the the proposal.

Rightandleft

As a high school teacher I deal with this age group all the time. I believe the adult courts should pick them up from age 16. By that age they are definitely mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions if they commit a crime.

waikatosinger

“Maybe again have some sort of threshold? If you make more than x (say four) youth court appearances, then it is the adult court after that?”

If we defined a youth court appearance as a”ball”, we could call it the “four balls” legislation. Four balls and you get to walk – over the road to the adult court. Three strikes and you are out – of circulation, hopefully for good.